I harvested a basketful of guavas this
morning and was reminded of an important biblical lesson. The biggest guava was 6
inches long; the smallest was only 2.
There were many in between... but they are all guavas, and from the same plant. What a lesson to those elitist children of God who DISMISS others
as children of God because their 'size' of discipleship or perseverance does not meet their expectations! Though the
Scriptures clearly state that fruitlessness among God's children is a harsh
reality, and the warnings against such are solemn, yet those elitist synergists
choose to conclude otherwise: 'if one is fruitless, he CAN'T possibly be God's
child to begin with.' They are saying the small guava can't possibly be a guava... It's just a piece of pebble! God should give them a few slaps for such
impudence!
Charles Page
What are those?
Mark Thomas
Beautiful lesson, Bro. Sing. Beautiful.
Nick Migliacci
The small guava is still a guava. Nobody's
saying a small guava isn't a guava. (Consider Lk. 13:6-9) The person who has
zero fruit should not presume upon God that he is God's child simply because he
prayed the sinner's prayer.
Sing F Lau
Nick Migliacci, you are obsessed with those
who said a sinner's prayer - why pick on the cheapskate to defend your fable???
I am dealing with those like Lot, Solomon, those devout Jews who didn't even
believe Jesus Christ, etc. Did they meet your standard of persevering in a life
of faith and holiness to your end? Did they qualify your standard to be qualified
as God's children?
Charles Page
LOL I am loving this!!!
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko, what do you know about them by
their fruit... may I ask? And read the passage again before you go blah blah
blah. I do entertain men who speak sense... not just SOUND!
Is a wild guava any less than a guava?
Why does a cultivated guava plant produce
fruit of all sizes, and not just one size that you wish?
Is the guava that is less mature than you expected any less of a guava?
[Andrew Rizko has deleted all his comments]
Dellis Worsham Sr.
1 cor.12:12 For as the body is one, and hath
many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body:
so also is Christ.
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into
one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have
been all made to drink into one Spirit.
14 For the body is not one member, but many.
15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not
the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not
the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?
17 If the whole body were an eye, where were
the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?
18 But now hath God set the members every one
of them in the body, as it hath pleased him....
24 For our comely parts have no need: but God
hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part
which lacked.
25 That there should be no schism in the
body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
26 And whether one member suffer, all the
members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with
it.
An act of grace is to help a weaker vessel
and not condemn it because it doesn't meet others' standards.
Sing F Lau
I heard a few Americans have this notion: if
you are an Ivy League graduate and have not attained the American Dream, then
you can possibly be an American, but a pariah!
Some elitist Christians entertain the same
injurious fable!
Dallas Eaton II
Moses died on a mountain top separated from
the nation of Israel without stepping foot into the promised land, never found a
Biblical moment of repentance for his sin recorded in order that he may be able to have persevered and proven his sonship.
Sing F Lau
I heard a certain Dr Chew actually said that
since Moses did not enter the promised land, he is not saved, and went to hell!
He is a KJV-only man. The same man also said that certain late Pastor Lim
couldn't have been saved because he had used NKJV.
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko, so what do you know about who
by their fruit?
If you can't answer this, don't write
further.
Don't be a noisome clanging cymbal...
Sing F Lau
Matthew Ong, find a church to settle down
first... and then I will begin listen to you! Churchless state will not do a
man any good... it will only aggravate his weirdness in character, and
doctrines! He is no answerable to any.
If you want a KJV-only church, I can refer
you to one. Go see Pastor Ter!
Dr Chew is saying the exact thing you are
saying: those who don't use KJT is of the Devil. And those of the devil
necessarily go to hell - just a logical conclusion. He is consistent, but you
are not!
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko, one more warning.
So what do you know about who by their fruit?
If you can't answer this, don't write
further.
Don't be a noisome clanging cymbal...
That's the rule of engagement here.
You are free to make statements.
Your freedom to make statements is coupled
with an OBLIGATION to answer questions on the statement made. If you cannot comply
with this simple rule, you will lose your PRIVILEGE to comment here.
I will go one by one. When you haven't even
discussed your first statement, it is foolish to bring other things to the table.
Do you understand?
Just to entertain your stupidity, does a barren cherry tree turn it into a mango tree because it is barren? A cherry tree remains a cherry tree. Barrenness does not change the nature of a tree!
Dellis Worsham Sr.
What is the fruit of a Christian?
Sing F Lau
Matthew Ong, this is plain Chinese logic.
You are a true full-blooded pork-loving Chinese, are you not?
You said, "Those who don't use KJT are
of the Devil."
Dr Chew said those who don't use KJT go to
hell.
Don't you agree that those who are of the
Devil go to hell to be with the Devil? Do you need to be a Greek to conclude
like that?
You have just INSULTED the Chinese, as though
the Chinese are incapable of simple logic... that it is Grecian logic! You
should be ashamed of yourself being so illogical and inconsistent, Uncle Mathiu!
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko, does a sickly sheep that does
not produce wool turn into a goat?
Sing F Lau
Spell out the issue, then I will answer your
question, uncle mathiu!
Is the issue that those who don't use them are of
the Devil - like you insist?
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko @ "Barren cherry trees are
as useful as a pine tree or an oak when you want cherries. This is easy to
understand I hope."
===========
You have just changed subject! Barren cheery
tree remains cherry tree even after you cut it down. Just because you don't
find any cherry, it doesn't cease to be a cherry tree.
You insist that there is NO SUCH thing as a
barren cherry tree... i.e. there is no such thing as BARREN FRUITLESS children
of God... even though the Scriptures warns God's children of such reality!
Let God be true but every man a LIAR!
Dellis Worsham Sr.
The first church I joined was KJV; it was
scoffield KJV. I bought the study bible and found lots of enlightenment through
reading and prayerfully studying. The common name used for the NIV was Not
Inspired Version. There are quite a few verses in the NIV that are not only
different but aren't there at all. I don't trust it. As far as the other
versions, I am not too familiar with. But I like the thee's and thou's and have
no problem understanding the KJV. But to say that one is not saved if they don't use the KJV? I dunno but if I were to examine another version, I would use the
KJV as the reference to judge it by.
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko, you are a very rude man. You
have not even answered the first question posted to you until now... and you
keep on blah blah blah.
I repeat: So what do you know about who by
their fruit?
There is fruit, right? 'By their fruit'
presupposes there is fruit. 'Does not bear good fruit' presupposes there is
fruit, right? They do bear fruit, right? So, what is raving and ranting and
foaming about fruitlessness?
So, answer my question: So what do you know
about who by their fruit?
If you don't answer my simple question, stop
blah blah blah. You shall be blocked... because I can't stand noisome clanging
cymbal!
Kindly take note!
Sing F Lau|
Who is the passage speaking about?
See my question:
So WHAT do you know about WHO by their fruit?
Sing F Lau
Andrew Rizko @ Does not bear good fruit =
does not bear fruit at all!!!
This is just STUPID, just plain stupid... not
you... the statement!
Does not bear fruit = fruitless, does not bear fruit at
all.
Does not bear good fruit = bearing fruit, but
bearing bad fruit.
Lots of preachers bear BAD fruit...
Nick Migliacci
Sing, I can understand how, in your system,
it seems stupid to differentiate between “bearing bad fruit” and “bearing zero
fruit,” because for you, there is such a thing as a fruitless Christian (and
that is the result—or it may be the cause, if the truth were really known—of
the doctrine that teaches that “eternal salvation” need not necessarily be
accompanied by “temporal salvation.” (It seems to me that some “fruitless
Christian” somewhere invented this doctrine after a real Christian warned him
that his lifestyle was indicative of a life headed for hell, so he invented
this idea that God may not sanctify all whom He saves. And when this fellow was
challenged on this new doctrine, he said that “any other way creates a
works-based salvation; after all, if God sanctifies all whom he saves, then why
are some sanctified more than others? Clearly, if God meant sanctification to
show where a person is headed, then He would ensure that all Christians reach
maturity. The fact that He doesn’t allow all Christians to reach maturity means
their sanctification means nothing in regards to their eternal destiny. So I
need not worry about a thing in regards to my eternal destiny, since God
regenerated me; that’s all that matters. And besides, look at YOUR life; how
could YOU say you’re headed for heaven with that big beam in your eye? And are
you going to say that people like Solomon and Moses didn’t go to heaven since
their lives weren’t perfect?” That’s how I imagine the conversation went.
Something along those lines. That person is probably in hell right now, but I
don’t know; maybe the Lord graciously saved him before he died.)
Nick Migliacci
There are several problems with that, though.
1) What right does a person have to suppose
that they have been regenerated if there is absolutely no evidence to that
fact? When a person is convicted of a crime, there needs to be evidence in
order to incriminate that person. Suppose a person is “convicted” for being
regenerated. And suppose the prosecuting attorney asked the jury to examine the
evidence. And suppose there was no evidence. Do you think that person would be
found to be regenerate or unregenerate? Why should we suppose that God has
saved us if we see no evidence testifying to that? If you were to stick a metal
object into an electric outlet, and there was no buzz, would you insist that
there is electricity flowing to that receptacle, even when the most basic of
tests fails? Why did Paul tell the Corinthians to “examine yourselves” (2 Cor.
13:5) if evidence of being a Christian is not the proper way to determine if we
are truly a Christian? For Paul, zero evidence is proof positive that we are
lost. And notice that Paul issued that command to the CHURCH! Just because
somebody CLAIMS to be saved, means nothing if there is no evidence proving they
are saved.
2) I realize that such talk inevitably leads
to the question, “Just exactly how much proof does there need to be before we
can call ourselves a Christian?” And, “What if I had proof yesterday, but not
today; does that mean I lost my salvation, or that I was never saved yesterday
but was only deceiving myself?” For the best answer to such inquiries, one
should read Genesis 1:1 through Revelation 22:21. Then let the Spirit of God
convict as to whether they are truly saved or not. God will make it clear to
the person who truly wants to know whether they are saved or lost (Rom. 8:16).
Of course, the devil will also try to convince the lost person that they are a
Christian (if that is what the lost person desires to be known as, of course;
some lost persons don’t want to be known as Christians, but instead as Buddhists,
or Satanists, etc.).
3) “If I can’t spell out a clear-cut,
objective standard as to how much fruit constitutes being a Christian, then
what have I gained? Haven’t I only created a works-based salvation, or worse
yet, set myself up as the standard of what it means to be a true Christian?”
No, the desire for a clear-cut, list of rules that proves somebody is a
Christian is EXACTLY something the Pharisees would have relished! Legalists
LOVE “check-lists” where they can prove how good they are and justify
themselves by such rules. It is laziness, because walking by the Spirit takes
work, and there’s always room for growth. It’s never enough just to give 10% of
our income, or just to pray for 1 hour a day. The Spirit convicts us of secret
sins and shows us how far short we fall from the standard of Jesus’ perfection.
Wanting a “list of rules” avoids that kind of living. But as a matter fact, God
gave a list of 10 Commandments once (well, twice, technically), and we all
broke them! So a list like that is not the way to live the Christian life.
Living the Christian life is about walking in the Spirit, not fulfilling a list
of rules, especially man-made rules.
4) “Great! So it’s a free-for-all! I can live
as I please and nobody can say I’m headed for hell!” Paul addressed this in
Romans 6 – “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may
abound? Perish the thought!” “Shall we sin because we are not under law but
under grace? Again, perish the thought!” (vv. 1, 15) A person who thinks that way
is actually thinking like a lost person! A person walking in the Spirit would
not say, “If there is no list of rules, then I can live however I please.” The
Spirit is a Holy one, and as such, He will lead us to holy living (1 Pet. 1:15;
2 Pet. 3:11; Tit. 2:14). The result (“fruit”) of walking in the Spirit is
listed in Galatians 5:22-23. A person whose life is characterized by the list
of things in Galatians 5:19-21, is clearly giving evidence that they are not
walking in the Spirit, and Paul says that a person whose life is characterized
that way (not simply a person who commits instances of sin, but a person who
makes sin their full-time occupation; where sin is the rule, not the exception;
see 1 Jn. 3:6-9)—such persons “will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
5) Doesn’t it logically follow that warning
Christians of fruitlessness presupposes the existence of “fruitless
Christians?” No, it does not logically follow. That’s like asking, “Doesn’t it
logically follow that God gets hungry, since he says in Psalm 50:12, “If I were
hungry…”? It’s stating a hypothetical to make a point, not to teach that such a
hypothetical could ever be true. The many, many warnings in Scripture are given
to people who CLAIM to be Christians. There are many people who THINK they are
Christians, who name the name of the Lord, but will be told someday by Christ,
“I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Mt. 7:23).
Notice that they practiced lawlessness. Like a doctor who practices medicine,
their full-time occupation was lawlessness. They lived as a law unto
themselves, scorning the law of Christ. There’s a difference between a sheep
and a pig; it’s not that a sheep is immune from falling in the mud; it’s that
it’s nature is to not like the mud, and when it falls in the mud, the sheep
wants to get up and out. The pig, on the other hand, loves the mud and wallows
in it and has no desire to get up and leave it. The true nature of a person is
revealed in what they return to (2 Pet. 2:22).
6) Does that mean we can go around determining who has, and who has not, been regenerated? We can make educated guesses based on the part of the tree that we can see (Lk. 13:6-9; 1 Jn. 2:19), but only God knows infallibly, with absolute knowledge, just who He regenerated whom He hasn’t (2 Tim. 2:19). So we must reserve final, absolute judgment to God and God alone. We can say things like, “Friend, everything about your life that I can see points to your lostness; don’t kid yourself; the Bible says that people who live the way you are living spend eternity in hell. If you were wise, you would search your own soul and seriously ask yourself if you are even saved.” But we can’t say, “Friend, God has told me that you’re going to hell because you lied.” We are instructed to “make our calling and election sure” (2 Pet. 1:10). If we do not make our election sure, then it follows that we are not elect, not that we are elect but failed to make it sure. The whole point of “making our election sure” is so we can have confidence that we ARE indeed elect! In other words, we have no assurance of being elect if we fail to make our election sure.
Nick Migliacci
Therefore, while I don’t know infallibly the
present whereabouts of Lot’s wife, Solomon, or Moses, the principle still
holds. In other words, just because we don’t always know who a truth applies
to does not void the truthfulness of the principle. We cannot say, “Since we
don’t know the eternal state of Moses the way God does, then this business of
needing to bear fruit to be a Christian is false.” God knows whether Solomon
was saved or not; we don’t have to know whether Solomon was saved in order to
“know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9). 1
Corinthians 6:9 (and the many other “warning” passages in Scripture) are true,
even though we are not privy to identify specific individuals that such verses
are true about. All we can say to people is, “he who has an ear, let him hear.”
In other words, “If the shoe fits, wear it”, but I’m not going to judge—with absolute
dogmatism—who is saved and who is not (of course, I’m talking only about people
who claim to be Christians; there’s no question that people like Buddhists,
Hindus, atheists, etc. are not saved).
Nick Migliacci
Regarding the “cherry tree” analogy, the
Bible does not identify the name of the tree until its fruit can first be
identified. In other words, you have no right to call a tree a “cherry tree”
until and unless you see cherries falling from it. “Do men gather grapes from
thornbushes or figs from thistles?” (Mt. 7:16). So to apply the Bible to your
analogy, you do not know that a tree is a cherry tree unless it bears cherries.
Without it bearing cherries, you have no warrant for calling it a cherry tree.
If you’re looking at a thorn bush, you can’t say, “I know this is a grape
tree.” The reason you know it’s not a grape tree (speaking from Jesus’ point of
view) is because it’s bearing thorns instead of grapes. Thorn bushes bear
thorns; grape trees bear grapes. If the tree in your back yard isn’t bearing
cherries, then it’s some kind of tree, but not a cherry tree (so far as Jesus
would be concerned).
Is there any significant difference between a
tree that bears rotten fruit, and a tree that bears zero fruit? There may be
some technical differences here on earth, but as far as Jesus is concerned,
both trees will end up in the same place. The Bible has some things to say
about both types, and what it says is that both types end up in the same place.
That being the case, there’s very little to talk about concerning any minor
differences there might have been here on earth (1 Tim. 5:24). That’s like
saying, “What’s the difference between Goliath and Pharaoh?” Sure, there were
some differences, but from the big picture perspective, it’s hardly worth spending
much time pointing out the differences, because they were both lost and they’re
both in hell right now.
All that is to say that I maintain the stance
that “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed
away; behold, all things have become new.” But I will not be so foolish as to
indulge the legalist’s hankering for a list of specific things to “check off”
in order that they might justify themselves. The “Rich Young Ruler” simply
wanted another “notch in his belt” to go to heaven; he wasn’t interested in a
vital, dynamic, relationship with Christ. How can you measure “love,” or “joy,”
or “peace,” etc.? There’s no rigid measure for such things, and yet such things
are what the Christian life is all about (as far as our end is concerned) (Rom.
14:17). This much I can say with certainty: everybody, without exception, whom
the Bible makes abundantly clear that they were a Christian (like Noah, Paul,
the repentant thief on the cross, etc.)—they all exhibited new natures. To
varying degrees, yes. Read through the list of people in Hebrews 11 and you’ll
see that some were more faithful than others. But you won’t be able to point
out anybody in the Bible, about whom the Bible makes it abundantly clear that
they were indeed a child of God, who lived an utterly fruitless life.
God’s objective is to glorify Himself. If He can find a way to glorify Himself with the damnation of the lost, He can certainly find a way to glorify Himself with immature Christians. So it’s not as if God has failed, for not having sanctified every Christian to the same degree. Even that will glorify Him.
Sing F Lau
Nick Migliacci @ If we do not make our
election sure, then it follows that we are not elect, not that we are elect but
failed to make it sure. The whole point of “making our election sure” is so we
can have confidence that we ARE indeed elect! In other words, we have no
assurance of being elect if we fail to make our election sure.
===================
Here is the Scripture:
Your own words prove that you are just dead
wrong.
Read the SCRIPTURES... not your own ideas...
Scriptures...
8 For if these things be in you, and abound,
they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge
of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 But he that lacketh these things is blind,
and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old
sins.
10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give
diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye
shall never fall:
Nick says:
If we do not make our election
sure, then it follows that we are not elect.
Scriptures say:
If we do not make our
election sure, then we shall be barren and unfruitful in the knowledge of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
Nick says:
The whole point of “making our
election sure” is so we can have confidence that we ARE indeed elect!
Scriptures say:
The whole point of “making
our election sure” is so we shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Nick, you have quite obviously TWISTED
Scripture to fit your own fable! Why don't you just let the Scriptures speak for itself, huh?
What is the point of twisting the Scriptures to fit your own
ideas?
Let God be true, but every man a LIAR!!!
1. If they fail to add to their faith those
graces, they shall be barren and unfruitful... Scriptures warns.
- Is that
warning just hypothetical, not possible to those of like precious faith with
the Apostles?
2. If they fail to make their election
sure... they shall fall, Scriptures warn.
- Is this warning just hypothetical,
not possible to those of like precious faith with the Apostles?
God's children CANNOT fall from the STATE of
grace: God's power put them in it, and the same power will keep them in it. They IMMUTABLY remain in the state of grace.
- But they can fall from their faith, and make a shipwreck of their faith. Scriptures
says. You disagree, and insist that there is no such danger, and that those who
do fall into such danger cannot possibly be God's children.
Recognising such reality is neither to
encourage it nor approve it. But to deny it is to deny the truth of the Scriptures.
And it is STUPID to say that no assurance of
election is equivalent to non-election.
Thanks. I will end here.
